What is Digg?196 Comments
- FasmTrout, on 04/08/2008, -11/+194These are awful. Portraits shouldn't be HDR-ized.
- EmitStop, on 04/08/2008, -31/+142░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░██████████████░░░░░░
░░██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████░░
░░███████░░░░░░░░░████░░
░░██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████░░
░░███████░░░░░░░░░████░░
░░██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████░░
░░███████░░░░░░░░░████░░
░░██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████░░
░░░░██████░░░░░░██░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░██░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░██░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░████░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ - stealth45, on 04/08/2008, -3/+84All but about 3 of those are completely awful. Stop running snapshots through photomatix, it's annoying and the internet hates you.
- CrimsonBlur, on 04/08/2008, -9/+73For the millionth time, multiple exposures != High Dynamic Range! Recombining multiple exposures has been done since the dawn of photography, it has nothing to do with HDR.
These photographers that keep claiming to be doing HDR are just the worst, they don't know what the hell they are talking about. - mjpanzer, on 04/08/2008, -3/+45OMG IS IT A PHOTO OR A PAINTING!?!?! please stop with the HDR photos...we get it.
- diggB, on 04/08/2008, -5/+45When applied sparingly, HDR can enhance or alter the mood of an image in a meaningful and powerful way (http://flickr.com/photos/22366658@N05/2245307000/i ... however, many of these shots seem overly processed and seem to have HDR applied for HDR sake.
http://flickr.com/photos/ingmarvisser/1118976171/
Really, what's the purpose of HDR in this image? I'm not saying HDR is bad, but sometimes it's applied like a blunt instrument for no apparent reason. - GramarNatzi, on 04/08/2008, -8/+40Oh come off it. Not everyone has an HDR display lying round. Most of us non-professionals have to make do with a standard monitor for viewing our images. If you're worried about the acronym loosing its meaning then just make up another one like LHDR (L33T High Dynamic Range) so all you conceited fags can go back to pretending you're better than everyone else.
- Vaughanabe13, on 04/08/2008, -2/+29Seems like everyone has a dirty face
- DeathJux, on 04/08/2008, -4/+31This confirms it: HDR photography is what the world looks like on LSD. Every little detail in focus. Every spec of dirt obvious and exaggerated.
In these circumstances, Nature is beautiful, but people are generally not. - inactive, on 04/08/2008, -9/+32I heeded your advice and dugg you down.
- LiquidIse, on 04/08/2008, -3/+26I can't help but feel like black and white is not the best place for HDR
- BlueSkyfish, on 04/08/2008, -0/+22♦∩☺▒╕◙♪☼√Ω↔∂™⌂ tea kettle!
- coheedcollapse, on 04/08/2008, -1/+23I agree. The only thing that really makes a portrait interesting is shadow and light glancing off of the features in skin. HDR eliminates that and often leaves a crappy gray cast that makes subjects look like zombies. These area really horrible.
- danesis, on 04/08/2008, -5/+26I took an HDR image of my cat a while ago, what ya'll think?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21707782@N04/21297898 ... - Xionn, on 04/08/2008, -1/+21there are a couple that are done well... but generally I would agree. Of course, there are plenty of HDR shots of landscapes that are awful as well.
- zizzy, on 04/08/2008, -4/+21This guy looks eerily like Heath Ledger:
http://flickr.com/photos/tji/1574730456/ - Diddy321, on 04/08/2008, -1/+17Anyone else feel like some of this HDR stuff reminds them of when photoshop first rolled out and everywhere you looked there was lens flare and other cheesy effects? Filter -> Artistic -> HDR I'm sure is just around the corner (if not here already - I'm still using Photoshop 7)
- Phil1ip123, on 04/08/2008, -0/+15I like HDR when it's done right. These are not.
- castevens, on 04/08/2008, -2/+15If you take a RAW (TIFF/NEF) image, you can create an HDR from a single file. I'm sure that's what they did.
- ElGanyan, on 04/08/2008, -1/+14Absolute *****. These are just tonemapped anyway, not true HDR, for ***** sake.
- eradicator, on 04/08/2008, -1/+13Great, I learned that HDR is perfect for making your subject look like they need a bath.
- liah, on 04/08/2008, -1/+13Am I the only one who thinks HDR is ugly?
- coheedcollapse, on 04/08/2008, -0/+12B+W HDR/tone mapping can look pretty cool. Here's one I did while experimenting a bit with a photo that just wouldn't come out unless I blended exposures. The stuff is usually my mortal enemy, but I experiment with it at times.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cityeyes/2336027201/ - inactive, on 04/08/2008, -1/+12Why would you WANT to make it look fake?
- AHHHHH, on 04/08/2008, -0/+11I think that HDR will be one of those overused fads that I look back on and laugh at... just like HTML blink or marquee tags.
- bourneagain, on 04/08/2008, -1/+10Enough with the HDR photography. HDR is a great way to take an "amazing" photo, without having any actual skill. It makes everything look crazy. How about taking some real photographs?
HDR just looks silly and unreal. - Karmavs, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9you've got it upside down
- SebG, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9Ugh, now im really hating on HDR images
- jasmus, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8A lot of these shots could easily be accomplished with the right flash and reflector setup. Some of them are just awful.
HDR doesn't equal instant awesomeness - TheWorm, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8¿¿What??
- ChristianMagic, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8Anyone else feel like these first couple comments are fakes or something?
- PurpleDee, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8washed?
- PathDaemon, on 04/08/2008, -2/+10All of the images fall into one of three categories:
1. Have screwed up or no shadows
2. Look insanely stylized
3. Look good, but would have looked exactly the same without HDR. - mrgeekguy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7My eyes hurt.
- maanwi, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7I agree that the second link, the brother, was really horrid. HDR should be used to enhance the affects of light, not obliterate contrast.
- downwiththeking, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7Yeah he does without a doubt.
- ashura001, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6It looks like most of those were over sharpened all to hell and back.
HDR is a nifty tool when used properly. With the possible exception of two or three of them, none of these did it right. - CrimsonBlur, on 04/08/2008, -2/+8I'm not conceded, I'm not even being an ***** about it. I'm simply saying it's inaccurate, and there's no point calling it HDR. There is already a term for this, and it's multiple exposures.
People calling it HDR only came about because it turned into a buzzword because game devs started using it (again inaccurately) as a buzz word for their improved lighting engines which mostly just use excessive blooming effects anyway.
It's like watching a Blu-ray movie on a standard television and calling the picture you are seeing HD. The content may be coded in HD but your TV is simply not capable of displaying HD content, so it's still just SD when you're looking at it on the screen. There's no such thing as "faking" HD, just like you can't "fake" HDR, it's just the wrong term altogether. - OneLess, on 04/08/2008, -2/+8Yeah you're the only one. Along with the dozen-odd people who commented before you expressing their distaste for HDR.
- HeLLFyRe490, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Yay digg effect...but on a side note...
I'd say that's probably one of the cooler 404 pages I've seen - radarbeam, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Not really flattering. I don't see anything that makes me go WOW in these HDR portraits. Leave HDR for landscape.
- KIERANMULLEN, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5or easyhdr which is a tad cheaper
- coheedcollapse, on 04/08/2008, -2/+7Actually, when you take it literally, what those people create in the end IS considered HDR. It combines the exposures into an image with a high dynamic range of exposres that can't be displayed on a regular monitor After tone-mapping with one program or another, the image can be displayed on a regular monitor (although I guess it's not really HDR any more - just a flattened and processed compilation of the exposures that were used).
I do agree that most people who do it have no idea what they're talking about and pump out a bunch of crap though. - Triplewide, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5I agree as well, what you obscure in an image is equally important as what you show. Most of these "HDR" images do nothing for me.
- directedition, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5I'm guessing 'Low Dynamic Range' just doesn't sound like it would sell.
Now if we had XDR 'eXtreme Dynamic Range', then you'd really have a fad going. - 80hd, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6fake hdr doesn't quite work as well though. it has a higher range, but auto bracketing is much better yet
- Fadakar, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5It's called project 365, call me crazy but I think he took a picture of himself for every day of the year.
- ufaithfull, on 04/08/2008, -3/+8http://kevingelinas.com/wtaw.mp3
- DeathJux, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Auto Exposure Bracketing. Most DSLRs will let you "auto-bracket" your exposures, meaning it takes three (or more) shots in rapid succession, at different levels of exposure (i.e. one stop below, one at, and one above).
- greg2point0, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5HDRCAT'S DYNAMIC RANGE IS HIGH
-
Show 51 - 100 of 192 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is